It's only fair when both armies are equal. If you have more units, then you are just wasting armour losses. If you have less units then you aren't going to achieve as much damage as you would with more range.

Also another thing I found on solo worlds is if you build with damage you are at risk against someone who builds pure anti you. If they get the 25% attack damage from both chassis and weapon type they will be putting in a lot of damage before your damage even get to hit, screwed me completely over (I play 10/10/10 as a test for the era)

It's only fair when both armies are equal. If you have more units, then you are just wasting armour losses. If you have less units then you aren't going to achieve as much damage as you would with more range.

Also another thing I found on solo worlds is if you build with damage you are at risk against someone who builds pure anti you. If they get the 25% attack damage from both chassis and weapon type they will be putting in a lot of damage before your damage even get to hit, screwed me completely over (I play 10/10/10 as a test for the era)

yes, i see what you mean!

so have i just wasted 5 minutes of researching into builds and experimentation then? is there no hope? are we forever bound to the shackles that are 10/20 (or 9/21 if you are pro like me )

actually...wait...no.

your squad is 5600 metal per squad. mine is 5204... saved metal which can therefore be used to build more units.

if you are careful when you use your squads and always send an overwhelming number, then my build beats yours by a long shot. you save 800 metal for two squads which will easily cover the cost of the 7 armour units that you lose if you send two of my squads versus one of yours.

soo...mine is CHEAPER, hurts less when you have overhead, is easier to build early on as you can build damage units as well as range, and hurts less when it comes to oil.

The biggest thing you fail to account for is pro players will not fight an even battle. Another reason your build will fail is if I spy or nuke you your entire army may be dead before your damage units even get to fire.

The biggest thing you fail to account for is pro players will not fight an even battle. Another reason your build will fail is if I spy or nuke you your entire army may be dead before your damage units even get to fire.

Not to offend you but that is a ridiculous point to make. it would be stupid to leave your whole army in a place where they can get spied or nuked, and anyway, if ANY build got spied or nuked, it would lose a lot of hp and effectiveness.

Also, i know the top teams dont fight fair fights. so what? what has that got to do with my build? I am leading the rank 3 alliance in mars 2 at the moment and i have won an era before. Yet you speak as if i have no idea what i'm saying.

I hope you will agree with me on this: The key to winning fights and minimizing losses is to do all your battles in as few rounds as possible. The key to winning an era is to make sure your enemies die, while at the same time preserving as many of your own squads as possible.

For objective #1, minimizing losses, you want your battles to be done in 1 round. For a battle to be 1 round, there is absolutely no reason to have damage in your squad. They have 1 HP per 25 metal, and will do 0 damage per metal in a 1 rounded battle. Therefore in a 1 rounded battle they are inefficient both as armor as for dealing damage.

Then of course you might say that not all battles will be 1 round, and that many will be 2 round or more. This however is ignoring objective #2, preserving as many of your squads as possible. If you are constantly fighting battles where you lose more than you absolutely need to, you have a problem. This should be avoided at all costs. Therefore 1 round is always the objective and damage is obsolete. Armor is most efficient for HP, range is most efficient for doing damage.

Yes, your squads wins in an even fight. Wohoo. Tell me the last time you saw someone attacking and you thought: Heck, I'll just send the same amount of squads as he did!

Quote:

Cheaper. Better. Stronger. Damage units, if have a lot of experience, will just absolutely annihalate in this build.

What I find funnier about that comment is the last part though: If they have a lot of experience, damage units will annihilate in this build. Man, if range units have a lot of experience they will have range 4 or range 5. That's not a reason to go with damage at all, I would rather have my range get +1 than my damage. Because +1 range for damage still means they fire at the same time as the opposing range units.

A long story short.. If you are playing a world to WIN, as in to get rank 1 and nothing short of it, you will want to minimize armor loss and go for 1 round kills. Building damage units is obsolete in this case as the resources would be better spent on recruiting more range units leading to more damage in round 1 and therefore the ability to take on larger fights in 1 round. Going damage will work, but for damage to be efficient you need to do at least 3 round fights, since in round 2 range still has done more damage than damage. Doing round 3 fights consistently, which seems to be what you are aiming at otherwise you would not have this damage would mean unneeded losses and therefore a large increase in the amount of metal you will be spending on unit substitution.

_________________Won both Championship Eras as rank 1.. Waiting to make it 3 out of 3.

Fact is, 4/5 of the major battles are only 1 round long on serious worlds. I don't know what goes down on Mars, but stuff gets a lot more crazy on Earth worlds. Try doing that build, but the 10:0:20 side has 5 times the troops. Then swap out the 10:5:15 build for the 10:0:20 build and see which one deals the most damage to the enemy before it dies.

EDIT: Yeah, listen to Milan.. Much better at explaining things than me XD

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum